Long long ago I was a tattoo artist. With very careful needle adjustments, color choices, and a steady hand, this is already possible with conventional inks. Simple example: white ink is titanium oxide, basically sunscreen, and breaks down rapidly with exposure to UV.
But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life.
Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs? I'd pay money to see that. :)
A friend's daughter does tattooing, and from the friend I heard that apprentice artists work on pigskin. I had imagined footballs, but no, this is obtained from slaughterhouses or butchers. Anyway, I guess that footballs aren't made of pigskin.
But they are talking about tattoos that fade because they are broken down by a biological process, which makes me giggle picturing Arnold The Pig with "Born 2 Trot" on his hock.
Can't blame someone for finding pigs getting tattoos quite amusing. :-) You know full well that it's not a big deal and you're just making edgy comments for the sake of edgy comments.
For fuck sake dude, it's a pig. If you actually care about living things, do something about the slave labor used to source raw materials for the computer you wrote that on. I'm going to guess your conviction is about living creatures in pain, not about pigs in particular. One of these is much more disgusting than the other. Honestly who gives a flying fuck about a pig getting a tattoo.
> If you actually care about living things, do something about the slave labor used to source raw materials for the computer you wrote that on.
This translates to "if you can't save everybody 100%, then you shouldn't help anybody." It's a self-defeating attitude that if something can't be done 100% perfect that it shouldn't be done at all.
Would you tell someone that devotes their lives to working in soup kitchens and helping the poor in first-world countries that they "aren't doing enough" because there are people that "have it worse" than the first-world poor somewhere else in the world?
I'm not sure you would find anyone in agreement of a defence of the Iraq War that was along the lines of "It could be worse, just look at the Holocaust!" Pointing to something else and saying "it could be worse" isn't a defence of the actions in question. It's something along the lines of "passing the buck."
It sounds like you are reducing OP to a binary, with us or without us - on the attack or or the defense. This is the discourse of binary politics, and that's why there is no nuance to discussions of the Iraq war.
I suspect your parent's point was that saying putting tattoos on pigs is "disgusting and shameful" is a little odd, given that animals eat each other all the time (which is presumably not disgusting nor shameful).
The logic doesn't work because the two acts are not necessarily equal. Let's take another example: Would you equate the following items?
- Torturing an animal to death for fun.
- Killing an animal quickly and eating it.
They both end up with the animal being dead. Does that mean that they are equal and that you can't find one "disgusting and shameful" but not the other?
I wouldn't equate those two, no. But it's also worth mentioning that it's common in the natural world for prey to spend hours dying (and more rarely, days or even weeks). The idea that a 'natural predator' death means a quick death is a myth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
The point is that you keep making leaps of logic in order to knock down strawmen, rather than addressing the actual substantive arguments at play.
My point is that a pig in captivity that is treated well and protected from predators, oh and that happens to get tattoo or two, is still doing better than a pig out in the wild, which is subject to much worse things happening to it. The pigs in captivity even get health care!
I meant more in the sense of watching someone try to tattoo a 100kg hog, and how hard they'd get bit. But you are right, it's probably more like little adorable Wilbur pigs. :(
Why? They are testing if the tattoo fades or not, there's really no chance of adverse effects. The worst thing that happens is a pig has a permanent tattoo.
You would probably still want to be selective about which tattoos you get and where they are placed. Each session can create scar tissue which could be noticeable even if the ink fades completely, and it can be harder to tattoo over scar tissue as well.
Scarring isn't guaranteed, and to a large extent depends on the artist knowing what they're doing, but still something to consider.
Scars are skin color though, not pigment color. Also they're not nearly as fine as the original tattoo was. What had bene an easily discernible intricate design in a high contrast color will end up as an indiscernible mush of near-skin-tone scar tissue, like a low degree burn that's healed.
I'm torn. On one hand, this invention will keep a lot of people from making the very common mistake of getting ink they don't like and can't remove.
On the other hand, a beautiful part of this art form is that it is basically permanent. To my mind, a tattoo loses a lot of its value of it's only temporary.
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I've got quite a bit of ink and the permanence is a huge part of what makes it meaningful to me. They aren't just pretty pictures; they tell a story.
It's just another option for people. I like permanent tattoos as well, and I love checking out a person's tattoo's (though I'm not fond of 'full sleeves' and similar, where it's hard to pick out the individual tatts).
The 'story' point reminded me of my response to people who say "Yeah, but what will your tatts look like when you're 80? They'll look terrible": "What, you mean at the end of my time, after I've enjoyed them all my life?"
> Yeah, but what will your tatts look like when you're 80?
Which is a good point. Current tattoos are also limited in life span. Even before a person dies, the tattoo will start to blur. So really these guys are just lowering the life span of a tattoo to something within a persons life. Which is already a thing since you can get tattoos removed by laser.
So all they have done, should they succeed is make things more convenient.
I realize that every person is different, but I can't imagine going through the pain and expense of getting tattooed and only having it for a year. The permanence is what gives me enough perspective during the sessions to know that, yes it's hurting a lot and costing a fortune, but at least I get to keep it forever.
A temporary tattoo is like dating somebody. A permanent tattoo is like marrying somebody. To me it's completely logical that you might want to try a tattoo on for a while and, if you like it enough, you can commit for life and make it permanent. Otherwise, if you jump straight into tattoo marriage and you don't like it, you're looking at a laser divorce.
There are a lot of people that will change their haircut, color and style a few times a year... why not tattoos as well.. though I'm not sure how much I'd be into that, but can see a market.
I am pretty sure quite a lot of tattoos are just fashion accessories like the lower back tattoo, white guys with tribal tattoos, tattoos of chinese characters.
I live in Sydney and I've also noticed other sub-genres:
- Middle class women with tattoos of silouettes of a flock of birds in flight.
- Women who dress in 30s fashion with tattoos of swallows usually around their collar bones. I have not spotted any in the last few years.
- Asian girls of the Lotita sub-culture with tattoos of antique cutlery.
How are ephemeral tattoos any different than today's temporary stick-on tattoos or (as a sibling comment points out below) henna designs? I'm not seeing how the art form or value will be impacted as tattoos would, for the most part, still be permanent for those that are serious about their ink.
It would be strange if the value of tattoos is in large part due to many people walking around with tats they don't want.
It's all about how temporary it is. A few days to a few weeks is definitely different then having something that sticks with you for at least a year.
I'm sure the designs will change, as will the motivations for getting them. Beyond that, this technology would be difficult to differentiate from a traditional tattoo whereas henna and temporary tattoos are visibly different.
Yep they will become a marker of your generation. I am hoping that by the time my kids grow up that tattoos will be seen by them as those blobby blue things that old people have on them.
> On one hand, this invention will keep a lot of people from making the very common mistake of getting ink they don't like and can't remove.
Not sure that it will change an often spur of the moment, possibly rebellious or first love, decision. When asked the question do you want it in permanent ink I still think the answer will be mostly yes.
I'm with you but I'm not torn. A temporary tattoo to me is like a kid's sticker tattoo. Tattoo's magic, as you said is from being a permanent work of art on your skin. Making you a canvas for life. Without that aspect one might as well use a ballpoint pen to draw something on oneself.
The story? It's in many ways an irrevocable decision that technologists seem poised to render moot. Shame that the meaning of that is disregarded so...
PS... how convenient, they own the ink and the way to remove it. SV... sigh
If they really have a solution that is safe and they prove it, they will really disrupt the tattoo market. Losing the fear with a solution like this one will make people want more tattoos for sure !
Safety is definitely the number 1 concern. I'm not sure how long trials will need to run before they can confirm there is no increased cancer risk.
Also a concern. If it's gone in a year, what does it look like in 6 months? Are you going to look like you have a nasty blob-bruise for 6 months as the definition fades and the ink migrates?
There is absolutely no way that they can take enough statistics to prove that there's no increased cancer risk. i don't think we even know whether regular tattoos increase cancer risks.
In 2016, it is estimated that the risk of an individual being diagnosed with cancer by their 85th birthday will be 1 in 2 (1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females).[1]
According to at least one source[2] 14.5% of Australians have a tattoo.
I'm going to go with tattoo ink not being a major cause of cancer. If it were you would expect to see more skin cancers local to the tattoo, or some other particular type of cancer more common among those with tattoos.
I think we've got bigger problems than any potential cancer risk form tattoos. Bigger problems like alcohol, cigarettes, benzene in petrol, vehicle exhaust, combustion of coal for electricity, consumption of processed meats - these are all known carcinogens[3].
We don't know a 100% whether current tattoo inks causes cancer, but we have a pretty good body of evidence to suggest they don't. Most tattoo inks are pretty old compounds whose toxicity has been tested (e.g. black ink is carbon black).
On the other hand, if they do start giving people cancer or something the FDA probably would step in. The reason they don't currently is (presumably) just lack of evidence that there's a problem.
It's probably worth keeping future regulation in mind for them, lest they accidentally get themselves regulated out of business.
I guess that as long that it just loses color intensity it's not a problem. If it blurs... then well, It's better than nothing and entry barrier less for lot of people.
I don't expect much impact. People who do not want their tattoo now did want it permanently at an earlier stage. Back then, the permanence was part of the appeal. The implied message of commitment is the selling point, not the direct visual effect.
This is very noticeable in the tattoo decision tree: it goes "so I really want a tattoo, where do I want it and which motive?" instead of "so I really want a picture of X on my arm, do I get it painted or do I get it tattooed?"
One interesting use for this would be to get a tattoo you think you want to be permanent, and then when it fades, decide if you liked it enough to get it redone with permanent ink.
Your doubling the cost of a tattoo though and they're already pretty expensive. Wouldn't it make more sense to just be certain you want one before you get it and save hundreds of dollars?
> Wouldn't it make more sense to just be certain you want one before you get it and save hundreds of dollars?
Sure. But how can you be certain? I have no idea what it's like to have a tattoo, or whether I'd regret it. Would I be too self-conscious about having it? Or would I enjoy seeing it in the dark?
I've had one specific one in mind for most of my life, but I don't know if I want it. If I were able to get a fading one, I'd be way more likely to jump on it. The increased cost is nothing compared to being able to decide if I actually like the damn thing.
About eight years ago, I came up with an idea for a tattoo I wanted: a pair of stylized dragon wings stretching from one elbow to the other. I drew up a first version of it, made a stencil, and got my then-boyfriend to draw the thing on me with a magic marker. It took a week or two to wash off, during which I could get used to the idea of having a pair of wings on my arms and decide if I liked it.
Ultimately I ended up taking another four or five years before I finally settled on a version of the design I liked, and spent eighteen months getting it tattooed on me. It's been finished for about two years and I'm still delighted to see it every now and then.
If you've wanted the same design for most of your life, I say go for it. Iterate on the imagery until you have a version that you look at and say "yes, this is perfect, I want this on me now because I have been waiting long enough already". If you're not an artist like me then find one whose work you like and ask if they're taking commissions. Then put it on yourself: stencil it on with a magic marker if it's a tribal thing, get it done in henna, or even print it out on temporary tattoo paper. Which is a thing that exists, that you can shove into any inkjet printer. No need for hassling with the incredibly slow and painful process of having needles stuck in the same part of your skin twice.
Take ownership of yourself by putting your own mark on your body.
Just get a henna tattoo of what you are wanting. If you don't miss it after it's gone, then don't get the tattoo. Pretty straight forward and shorter waiting period for evaluation.
I jumped the gun and got mine having been in the same predicament and don't regret it. Having thought about it for years, it was easy with just a little nudge.
You get a tattoo and then you live with it. It's a part of your body. It's just there. It's not something you really think about on a day to day basis. At least I don't.
I have 3 tattoos and sometimes forget they're even there until something reminds me.
The only reason I don't have more is that they're expensive and that you have to stop working out for a week or two when they're fresh.
You're confusing the way things are now with the way things must be, for some reason. Just because things are one way right now doesn't mean they won't be another way in the future. Especially if new technology comes along that disrupts the field.
This is true, I was responding to the parent post in particular. Right now, you can't be certain and that's part of the allure.
Many (most?) people, for instance, get tattoos to commemorate important events or people. The entire point of a tattoo in those cases is that it's permanent.
The more fundamental point of a tattoo is that it's decorative. There is an entire genre of tattoo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower-back_tattoo ) which is definitely not supposed to commemorate anything other than the sentiment "hey, look at me!"
The problem isn't being certain that's what you'll want in a year. Every tattoo parlor, car dealership, and wedding chapel has plenty of people who are certain. The problem is being right.
OTOH, it's really, really expensive when it turns out the execution of it isn't the same as you imagined. I'd probably handle that via image manipulation, though. It'd be a neat use of augmented reality or possibly virtual reality tech, too.
I am very skeptical about this, because when tattoo ink fades, it accumulates inside the lymphatic system, it is not flushed out of the body.
Black ink, for example, colors the lymph nodes within the area of the tatoo completely black. Black ink is made out of soot which often contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a carzinogen.
So if they say their product is "designed to break down after a year" and "By using smaller molecules, we’ve encapsulated them inside this spherical structure that’s big enough that your immune system doesn’t take it away. But when you remove it, it essentially eats away one of the components and the dye molecules are flushed out", i really wonder if this could quickly develop into a real health problem.
Smaller molecules really sound like nano particles and since tattoo dye is not flushed out of your body, i tend to assume those nano particles will accumulate inside the lymphatic system. And what about that "spherical structure" stuff, what is it made of? And that "removal solution" they talk about on their website, the symbol next to it looks like its also tattoed into the skin.
I lived most of my life in suburban areas where tattoos were uncommon. And then the last 5 years in a major city where they're everywhere. It's impossible for me to think of them as edgy anymore. They seem more like a cliche now. Just something you need to do to fully fit in with the majority of a much larger range of social circles than I used to think.
Ötzi is the oldest tattooed body we have and thus the oldest hard evidence of that practice.
While there is peripheral evidence of probable earlier tattooing (Cucuteni-Trypillian sculptures, and how wide-spread confirmed tattooing practices are circa 1000~2000BCE), we don't have anything hard before Ötzi (circa 3000BCE).
Incidentally, Ötzi's tattoos seem to be therapeutic rather than artistic.
Single parenting and low-pay college degree choices aren't necessarily short term thinking, nor is obesity or tooth decay. Or debt. I think there is a wide brush and a lot of assumptions being made here, many of which can be harmful.
For just one example, it's quite common for single parenting to actually just be a result of successfully escaping an abusive relationship.
Like I said, a lot of assumptions are being made here. Many of these have various common and easily brought up examples of how they're not necessarily an indication of the quality you're trying to sift for. By bringing a list of these not-really-indicating qualities there is going to be such a significant category of false positives that it may just look as if one is so eager to judge other lifestyles that they forget to perform basic critical thinking abd empathy.
Instead of attempting to brush off a wide range of people with very common and easily explained life qualities, why not assume people generally have reasons for the situations they're in? If there is a personality trait you dislike, one can practice observant behavior to analyze how the trait manifests in an individual and move on from there on how to deal with that individual. Trying to assume all individuals with a trait are the majority of people who may be in certain circumstances in life just seems like poor logic.
I don't have any tattoos and have zero interest in ever getting any, but this seems incredibly judgemental. Some of the most normal and boring people I know happen to have tattoos.
$50-100 for an average sized tattoo. So that's the price before you even pay the artist to do the work. Quite a big premium. I'd say the 'average' sized tattoo (something large on your bicep but not fully covering it or wrapping around it) is probably $300 and most of that cost is labour. Add the price of this expensive ink and you're paying $350-400 - for something that's going to disappear after a year.
So, a handful of fancy dinners? a cheap road trip? people pay a lot for an experience. Having the experience in a long term consequence free way will entice lots of people to try it out, i think.
Not to nitpick but $50-100 buys you typically an extremely small, single-color tattoo in many places. My last tattoo was a simple flag about 2x3" with 3 colors and a geometric design and cost around $120. Not sure what an "average" size tattoo is, but you're already looking at $350-400 for say, a 3x6" full color tattoo of any appreciable complexity.
As scott_s pointer out $50-100 was just the price of this special ink. So for the extremely small tattoo price you're quoting this ink doubles the total cost and only lasts 1 year.
I think you misunderstood k-mcgrady. The $50-100 is for the new ink, as per the company developing it. k-mcgrady quoted about the same as you for the existing cost for a tattoo.
It's a very big premium indeed. I have a half-sleeve that I've spent around $2000 on. Sure it's "cool" that I could replace it with something else, but would I have sat through all those hours and spent all that money for something that was going to disappear in a year? Absolutely not.
If tattoos are suddenly much more accessible, then there's going to be a lot more competition driving the price down, including a lot more opportunity for people to gain experience tattooing.
I disagree. Tattoo's may be more accessible for the person buying in that more people are willing to take the plunge - but the number of artists isn't going to increase. And the time a tattoo takes to complete isn't going to decrease. Essentially demand will increase (quite significantly) and supply will remain the same. So prices will increase. It takes many years to become a good tattoo artist and even a small tattoo is quite a time consuming procedure. There's little that can be done on the supply side to increase it.
But also a lot of inferior talent flooding the market, and lowered artistic standards since it's impermanent. I predict a ton of shitty tattoos if this takes off.
Meanwhile, my tattoo artist still keeps a huge blade in his drawer from when parlors in NYC were illegal, and prime targets for robberies. To be an artist then required a commitment.
About ten years ago, I remember an article about a special tattoo ink that was encased in laser-sensitive capsules. When irradiated, the capsules burst and the ink was absorbed virtually completely. The thing that outraged me was that they were having a hard time selling it, as tattoo "artists" were refusing to have their "creations" be removed at the user's behest. Most artists were even refusing to tell their customers that removable ink was an option.
Since criminals don't have resumes, tattoos used to be their signaling mechanisms. As suburban kids began to make that signalling useless, a few years ago I read that criminals had moved on to painful eyelid tattoos. A quick Google search shows that didn't slow the posers down very much. I wonder how criminals signal how badass they are these days?
I guess the market is there but I bet there are better applications than tattooing. Disappearing ink probably isn't worth the discomfort for many tattoos. But hey, tattoo ink isn't exactly the most innovative space so it's cool to see a fresh idea
It has been fun to watch this previously considered so dangerous become so mainstream. Something like this and you'll have tween girls having tattoo parties.
Everyone (including myself) that has been tattooed KNOWS they were going to be permanent before they got them.
If they wanted a removable option they wouldn't have got them in the first place.
A lot of the appeal of tattoos is because of their permanence and the commitment that resembles.
Oh good, even more barbed wire biceps, carp sleeves, black fore-arm stars, "tribal" patterns on white dudes, spiderwebs, hummingbirds, infinity symbols, and other ways for people to show how eager they are to express their "individuality"!
Edit: Down-vote me if I offend your tattooed rebellious self-image, it's fine, but there's a real point to be made. This technology will lead to a lot more tattoos, and a lot more homogeneity and poor designs. I know people with tattoos that most people would actually call legitimate "art", and I know some of them wouldn't be particularly thrilled by the further "watering down" of what they consider an important part of their identity.
It's funny. The last reason I received my tattoo was for any sense of individuality or to define my identity. People get tattoos for all sorts of reasons.
Sitting down with a good tattoo artist can mean many things. For some people it is getting a tattoo in the spur of the moment and making sure it is what they want. For others it is building a complex relationship and speaking your design through the artist. Other artists rather just do their own thing and have people lend their bodies. Cheap technology will never replace a good artist, and good artists won't be threatened by it.
I'd argue your salty response to tribal tattoos as proof that they are an effective form of art. Not exactly my taste, but still legitimate art. What else offends you?
The downvotes are because your comment added nothing to the discussion beyond expressing your distaste for people who dare decorate their body in a way that indicates membership in a group you personally have distaste for.
Nah, they are probably salty folk like yourself that got a chuckle from your open mic night tattoo joke because you typed what they were thinking but chose not to comment because it little to do with the actual article or because your complaint was a complete work and they felt they could add nothing and echoing the sentiment would be ironic in this context. With that said, you articulated one of the most clichéd reactions to fad tattoo designs.
I have no tattoos, and doubt I will, so this isn't about my self image. I downvoted you for being a dick.
And also for not really thinking this through. When a medium doesn't allow for iteration, people tend to a) make obvious choices, b) make conservative choices, and c) end up with regrets. As our ability to iterate in software has improved, we've ended up with more interesting work.
My bet is that we will see more total tattooings but fewer tattoo-years of flesh, so I think there will be a net decrease in seeing boring and/or shitty tattoos. I think the ones that people renew and/or make permanent will actually be better because they'll be more likely to get their dumb and/or exploratory tattoos done with temporary ink that they'll eventually let fade.
You didn't like my ideas. You downvoted because you disagreed. I don't play like that, but that's how it works around here, fine. But the fact that you feel welcome to call a stranger you've never met a dick, and then attempt to engage in civil discourse with him, says more about you than it does about me. Pick one or the other next time.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names
Most people learn this as children, but since you didn't, stick to the guidelines around here.
They've more recently renamed it "don't be a jerk", so if your delicate sensibilities can't handle my original comment, feel free to read it as "jerk".
In particular, you took something that a lot of people like and were shitty about it. You set yourself up as lord-high judge of them and their self expression. The people you were being condescending toward surely include people here.
Then, rather than just accepting the downvotes, you accused downvoters of working from offense to their "tattooed rebellious self-image", assuming bad faith and again acting superior.
I'm happy to call that being a dick.
As long as you're being a stickler for following the guidelines, perhaps read on down to "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Grow up, man. It's unbelievable you'd spend your time arguing that "don't be a dick" isn't name-calling. This is third-grade material. Imagine what the teacher would say to a student making this argument... and apply it to yourself.
Maybe take a step back. Someone expressed an opinion you didn't like, but one that didn't attack anyone personally. You proceeded to immediately call that person a dick -- oh, sorry, you said he's being a dick, because that's a distinction that's meaningful in this world...
You seem like a smart guy, so I bet you'd agree that dissenting opinions are something we want around here. They make this place better. Truly out-of-line comments are handled with the downvote system (and I note, mine apparently wasn't widely perceived to be out of line, judging by the votes.. it was just controversial). Now, would you say saying people are being dicks also makes this place better? You can do better than that.
Your comments have been breaking the HN guidelines in quite a few ways. Please stop posting personal attacks, going on about downvoting, being snarkily dismissive, and posting comments with no substance in them.
Yes, calling you the d-word was also against the "please don't call names" rule (at least arguably).
I like that you devote 3 paragraphs to my choice of 1 word, even though I already offered another, without ever touching on my point: your bad behavior. You are definitely a reasonable interlocutor whose opinions I take seriously.
I don't see the problem with other people's taste. Not sure why you have such a problem with it either. I mean, your handle is solipsism instead of hnreader7381648 because you like the word even though someone else may think it's an uninteresting word from a first year philosophy syllabus.
That's my handle for a reason having nothing to do with the philosophical concept, actually. Each person has his or her own reason for picking a handle, often publicly unknown and personal -- this is one of the cool things about handles.
If handles looked like this though: solipsism1, solipsism34, solipsism85, solipsism87, solipsism21, solipsism3485, solipsism_is_cool, solipsism_4thewin, solipsism111.... well, I can see being annoyed at seeing the same thing over and over again. It wouldn't bother you I guess. That's cool, there's no accounting for taste.
>That's my tattoo for a reason having nothing to do with the philosophical concept, actually. Each person has his or her own reason for picking a tattoo, often publicly unknown and personal -- this is one of the cool things about tattoos.
I wonder if you show this kind of disdain toward all types of fashion--like the clothes you yourself wear--or just toward certain things you likely associate with "hipsters" or some other easily-disparaged group?
I'm not sure I would have downvoted your original comment, but your edit about "rebellious self-image" seems uncalled for. Not everyone is trying to be rebellious all the time.
Just thinking out loud here... I wonder what would happen if we all stopped being so superficially judgmental and making nasty comments about people based on assumptions. Maybe people would actually end up making better choices on the whole because of a lack of pressure and there being nothing to rebel against.
Thanks for your comment, and fsociety's as well. More substantive and well thought-out than my original comment.
I admit I'm annoyed by a lot of fashion. Obviously I wear clothes -- not only are they practical, I wouldn't function well in society without them. But I'm annoyed by the way some people seem to go so far out of their way to brand themselves part of some particular subculture. This takes many forms. I'm annoyed by die-hard Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, meat-eaters, vegetarians (the die-hard ones who use it as yet another tribe to be a member of.. not anyone who eats meat or doesn't), punk rockers (it's my favorite kind of music, but the attire at a punk show is much less individualistic than that of the general public), bumper stickers, etc. And when this homogenization is sold as being rebellious or individualistic, it annoys me even more.
I could go on at length about why I have a problem with homogeneity and why it's a little more than simple annoyance, but I suppose I've lost my chance. I could go on at length about how important I think it is for every person to express hisself/herself however he/she chooses, even if it happens to annoy me, but this is also not too relevant. Most people probably wouldn't agree with me, but that's hopefully okay in the marketplace of ideas.
My original point, which was understood by basically no one (this is my fault, of course), was that I feel this technology would lead to more of homogeneity, which I would consider a bad thing. I said it poorly, and then acted poorly afterward as well.
What's wrong with tribal tats on whites guys? They had as little to do with the invention of those patterns as the descendants of the originators; Are tatoos limited to signalling personal perception of identity?
Alternatively, stop giving a fuck and let people do what they hell they want with their bodies. If you see yourself as above them because of it, that's your business.
But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life.
Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs? I'd pay money to see that. :)